Friday, April 18, 2008

Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming

Here are many "Peer-Reviewed" articles that should end the belief that "the debate is over" about global warming. It should also destroy the illusion that there is a "consensus" amongst scientists about the causes of global warming. Those propagating the myth of man-caused global warming are simply distorting reality and the facts.....and that is putting it politely.Peter

QUOTEHigh-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.

QUOTEThe Little Ice Age and the subsequent warming were global in extent. Several Holocene fluctuations in snowline, comparable in magnitude to that of the post-Little Ice Age warming, occurred in the Swiss Alps. Borehole records both in polar ice and in wells from all continents suggest the existence of a Medieval Warm Period. Finally, two multidecade-duration droughts plagued the western United States during the latter part of the Medieval Warm Period. I consider this evidence sufficiently convincing to merit an intensification of studies aimed at elucidating Holocene climate fluctuations, upon which the warming due to greenhouse gases is superimposed.

Doesn't matter. Don't you understand? As soon as they say something besides "man" is the ultimate cause of Climate Change, they are no longer "credible," regardless of how many peer reviewed studies they may publish.

As the maker of a climateskeptical website in the Netherlands ( www.klimatosoof.nl ) I am very happy with this list, only I would be even happier if you supplied some more information about who compiled this list and based on what criteria.

stan b,That is the most common attack method used by the true believers in the myth of man-caused global warming. They cry that it is not a political issue, yet the first thing they try to do is demean the credibility of the people writing the articles or doing the research.

That is one of the reasons the scientists speaking out against this myth are retired. The can be open and honest without fear of professional retaliation.

The first one I checked out (I ignored ones that had one of the usual dirty dozen as a coauthor) was Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20717, 2005)- Albert Arking . Here is the abstract:

Codes commonly used in climate and weather prediction models for calculating the transfer of solar radiation in the atmosphere show systematic differences amongst each other, and even the best of codes show systematic differences with respect to observations. A 1-dimensional radiative-convective equilibrium model is used to show the effects of such bias on the global energy balance and on the global response to a doubling of CO2. We find the main impact is in the energy exchange terms between the surface and atmosphere and in the convective transport in the lower troposphere, where it exceeds 10 W m−2. The impact on model response to doubling of CO2, on the other hand, is quite small and in most cases negligible.

I don't know, does that sound "skeptical of man-made global warming" to you?

"It must be convenient to ignore peer-reviewed papers based on your personal dislike of an author. Too bad the papers still exist despite the propaganda to the contrary."

LOL!!! Well said, Andrew! So then I suppose, Andrew, that your statement therefore means you are more than willing to concede that you should actually start paying attention to the multitudes, (MULTITUDES) of peer reviewed papers that support the fact that human emissions are causing global warming? Because you yourself are not biased at all are you? You wouldn't cherry pick would you?

As to your interpretation of this particular article - errrr let me make a WILD guess here...you're not, in fact, a scholar of climate science are you? LOL. Did you, in fact, even READ this article or just cherry pick and misinterpret one statement out of the abstract?

PS:The paper is examining whether biases (errors) between different radiative transfer codes used in the larger GCMs could affect the GCM responses to CO2 doubling. The conclusion is that no, they don't. The difference between the radiative transfer codes was found to be negligible, NOT the impact of doubling CO2. LOL.

I think it would be well for the alarmists to concede that an extensive amount of papers exist criticizing not only AGW but the underlying principles of which it is based such as GCMs.

No I am not a climate scientist, I am a computer scientist which is why any deviation from reality (observations) in any model means the model is flawed and thus irrelevant for prediction as are all GCMs.

The abstract states the following:

"even the best of codes show systematic differences with respect to observations."

That says it all and the reason why the paper was included. If it is conceded that GCMs deviate in any way from observations then they are useless for prediction, that is how computer science works no matter how much propaganda GCM proponents try to spread.

Heh. With the quote. It says it "all", huh? Nope, you really *aren't* much of a scientist are you?

BTW, you really should read the paper. It in NO WAY is attempting to negate AGW. In fact, it is one of the many MANY sensitivity studies that you deniers are always clamboring that we climate scientists are too stupid to do (too bad you don't pay attention to what's actually published out there). In fact, you should read ANY of those papers on your "list". I found several that were good pieces of work that, in fact, were in no way criticizing AGW and were supportive of it. Someone didn't do their research very well...

Rather than make an honest attempt to understand the years of experience and scientific research that has gone into this issue, you're randomly pulling papers off internet sites and throwing around words like you have an understanding of the issues. Bleah. I'm wasting my time.

"No I am not a climate scientist, I am a computer scientist which is why any deviation from reality (observations) in any model means the model is flawed and thus irrelevant for prediction as are all GCMs."

BTW, just curious. What observations are you talking about that you believe GCMs cannot predict? Can you be specific? "Observations" is a pretty ambiguous term. Are you talking about meteorological terms? Chemical? Radiative? Physical? Do you have a legitimate concern or just a generic deniers widecast net sort of concern?

So the paper does not really state that"even the best of codes show systematic differences with respect to observations."?

Whether the author believes in AGW or makes asides to it in the paper this very statement contradicts AGW and is further proof that GCMs are flawed. If model codes do not match reality they are flawed and no amount of math can excuse that. Apparently I am more of a scientist than you. But then again a lack of computer science education is why we are at where we are now.

Again since AGW is built upon many aspects and any paper that directly criticized one of those further disproves AGW.

I have made an honest attempt to understand the manufactured science and it all comes back to flawed computer models because the public is largely computer illiterate.

GCMs have shown no ability to predict anything accurately. A prediction is made but never verified (the "verifications" I have seen a cruel joke to the computer illiterate) and the model is latter tuned, bug fixes are applied and input data adjusted or updated and you have a perpetual lie of "predictions" being accurate.

I am well aware people such as yourself with little understanding of computer science are easily fooled by computer generated results but that in no way changes the reality of them being irrelevant for prediction.

There is no such RELEVANT thing as a model that can just "predict" meteorologic, chemical, radiative or physical properties absent of the others. The flaw in this thinking is that you can let alone on a computer. Sure you can code anything you want it does not mean it has any relevance to the real world especially if you ignore all the other interactions you don't understand or did not include in the model code.

Your attempt at a broad use of terms seems like you are reaching when the discussion has been between meteorological and climatic models which is more nonsense regardless.

Since you are returning to this original paper, I again suggest that that comment is talking about simple 1-dimensional radiative transfer models and sensitivity tests amongst them to determine if their differences impact the ultimate outcome of GCMs. The statement is not about GCMs in this case. Again, I urge you to actually read the article.

And again I ask you, WHICH observations do you feel GCMs cannot predict? Rather than these simplified generic "They can't do ANYTHING accurately!!!!" (stomp foot), why don't you give me some specifics? Are you concerned with regional scale predictions? Local? Hemispheric? Diurnal? Monthly averages? Global averages? Why do you state that predictions are not verified? I have read several publications that have focused on hindcasting, where a particular GCM is spun up decades ago and run to the present to test if it in fact can predict current conditions (they do a good job of it, if you are interested). What verifications are you referring to that are jokes? Which models are you referring to? Are you looking at coupled climate/chemistry predictive models, chemical forecasting models, or what? Oh, and don't be that I don't have an awful lot of experience and education in computer science. Heh.

By the way, my particular expertise deals with data analysis, so don't go assuming I don't understand the value of verification of models with real data.

I'm also sorry you feel the terms I use are broad. I was basing my response on the hand-wavy, undereducated tone of your own posts. I was only trying to write slowly enough that you might be able to follow.

"Codes commonly used in climate and weather prediction models for calculating the transfer of solar radiation in the atmosphere show systematic differences amongst each other, and even the best of codes show systematic differences with respect to observations."

It clearly states that the code used in GCMs to calculate the transfer of solar radiation in the atmosphere differ between GCMs and do not match observations.

See I am not looking at the conclusions of the paper but the blatantly obvious statements made by the author.

GCMs cannot predict anything. Clear enough? Then again many are fooled by the perpetual changes made to these models so they get perceived "close enough" results. Wrong with computers there is only right or wrong results.

It is GCM modelers who attempt to cherry pick results to propagandize conclusions.

Hindcasting is propaganda.

Testing a model against past climate is an advanced exercise in curve fitting, nothing more and proves absolutely nothing. What this means is you are attempting to have your model's output match the existing historical output that has been recorded. For example matching the global mean temperature curve over 100 years. Even if you match this temperature curve with your model it is meaningless. Your model could be using some irrelevant calculation that simply matches the curve but does not relate to the real world. With a computer model there are an infinite number of ways to match the temperature curve but only one way that represents the real world. It is impossible for computer models to prove which combination of climate physics correctly matches the real world.

Accurate Climate Prediction requires understanding everything 100% anything else is a waste of time. These models do not remotely come close and however close you think you come is still irrelevant. Computers do not fill in the blanks for you.

"GCMs cannot predict anything. Clear enough? Then again many are fooled by the perpetual changes made to these models so they get perceived "close enough" results. Wrong with computers there is only right or wrong results."

(GASP!!!!) Oh my. Take away my PhD from Georgia Tech then. OBVIOUSLY a computer scientists knows this stuff better than I. I've only been researching it for 20 years. You must be a really, really smart guy. Oooh, I'm in total awe. You even use a few scientific words sometimes and I'm generous so I'll ignore your foolishness.

"Hindcasting is propaganda."

What in the hell are you asking for then? You can't claim GCMs are "unable" to predict present climate, then turn around and claim attempts to show their ability to predict present climate are only propaganda. LOL!!!! You are a clever, clever one. Clearly more clever than the thousands of scientists researching this. Plus, you've carefully designed (copied) your arguments so you can never be shown you are wrong. Snazzy.

"Accurate Climate Prediction requires understanding everything 100% anything else is a waste of time. These models do not remotely come close and however close you think you come is still irrelevant. Computers do not fill in the blanks for you."

(LOL!!!!!!!!!! Oh my).Ah. I see. You're one of those. Do you realize that you STILL have not answered my question? WHAT OBSERVATIONS do you think GCMs cannot reproduce? Your handwaving would give me a headache if I weren't so awed by your obvious intelligence.

"Why are you posting anonymously?"(snort) Like it makes any difference that I register under some name online? Oh yeah, I forgot you guys get all your information from the internet so you obviously believe stuff you read on it means something.

Bye. Enough with this foolish experiment. I have real work to do. (I get PAID to do climate research. Doesn't that just chap your hide???)

The brave one still posting anonymously. I take it your Ph.D. was not in Computer Science as I have met many natural scientists absolutely clueless about computer science. Sure you have a basic understanding of them and can be fairly good computer USERS, that does not translate into a scientific understanding of computer systems which is directly related to GCMs.

Yes I am a very knowledgeable individual especially in the field of computer science.

GCMs are unable to predict anything and any perceived "close enough" coorelations to PAST climate is irrelevant and proves nothing.

Yes I am more or as clever than the handful of scientists pushing the alarmism based on GCMs.

Do I speak in riddles? I said ALL OBSERVATIONS. You do not get to cherry pick results that are "close enough" here but not here and then go back and adjust code for the ones that are not and still claim the same for the "close enough" ones.

You get paid to spread climate alarmism based on computer science you do not even begin to understand. Computers do not fill in the blanks for you, keep that in mind.

I prefer not to get my science from a cartoonist but thanks for the link to the alarmist site I found along time ago. Now go get me 100% of all the source code to all the GCMs properly commented. I would also like links to evidence of all the GCMs being independently code audited and verified.

"See I am not looking at the conclusions of the paper but the blatantly obvious statements made by the author."

Good lord. Keep reading (by the way - the short little paragraph thing that you're quoting from? That's the ABSTRACT, not the paper. There's a difference.)

The authors also conclude that those difference have NEGLIGIBLE IMPACTS ON GCM RESPONSES TO INCREASES in CO2. In other words, it's a nice little paper looking at some details of radiative transfer, but they conclude that for climate scale sorts of studies, the differences are irrelevant.

Perfect example of the difference between a climatologist and a computer scientist.

"Codes commonly used in climate and weather prediction models for calculating the transfer of solar radiation in the atmosphere show systematic differences amongst each other, and even the best of codes show systematic differences with respect to observations."

A computer scientist would stop here as you cannot move past this point as a programmer. In computer science you cannot excuse away coding errors with scientific papers. You need to fix the buggy code which is blatantly stated by the author. The author had no idea that by stating this he stated GCMs are flawed. The rest is irrelevant in computer science.

Hey dude. GCMs are computer programs. The difficult thing is in the understanding of the physical and chemical processes. You don't need a computer science degree to write fortran code. Really.

"GCMs are unable to predict anything and any perceived "close enough" coorelations to PAST climate is irrelevant and proves nothing."

I get it. You have closed your mind to understanding what climate models are intended to do (they are one of the tools that we use in our research). Keep those fingers in your ears and if you should NYA NYA NYA loudly enough, you might enjoy it more.

"Yes I am more or as clever than the handful of scientists pushing the alarmism based on GCMs."

Sounding a little defensive there, sweetie. I believe you! I bet you are a REALLY smart guy. Really.

"You get paid to spread climate alarmism based on computer science you do not even begin to understand. Computers do not fill in the blanks for you, keep that in mind."

Oooh, I'll keep that in mind. I never even THOUGHT of these great arguments that smart people like you are throwing around. That "sun causes all climate change" one? You know - I wonder if anyone has even thought to research that one. Ya think?

"I prefer not to get my science from a cartoonist but thanks for the link to the alarmist site I found along time ago."Oh you're quite welcome. Glad to help out. I thought the cartoonist theme went well for you. I'd have given you the Real Climate guys but they're actual scientists and I was afraid you'd have trouble following their discussion.

"Now go get me 100% of all the source code to all the GCMs properly commented."You're a computer scientist? Huh. No kidding? All of your code is ready to go out to the public I'm SURE. Have you thought to check on the IPCC pages for people to contact to get the code or to discuss it with them? You know all that information is there for you.

I would also like links to evidence of all the GCMs being independently code audited and verified.

Which is why you should stick to computer science. Obviously. Maybe when you finish up high school (or are you in community college yet?) you can take a course in a real science. It's really interesting and you'll learn a lot!!!!

Oh I have met many amatuer programmers and no reputable computer sofware compant would hire any programmer without former training yet natural scientists think they can just jump in because Fortran lets crap get compiled and run and they can easily apply mathematical equations in Fortran code. Trust me you need formal training to understand and code properly. Even with it many are utterly lost because they do not have a basic understanding of computer systems.

Yes I have closed my mind to my understanding of computer science instead of filling it with your nonsense on how computer systems works.

So there GCMs have been independently verified by computer scientists? Can you link me to the report?

I realize basic computer science is hard for you to grasp but what I stated was clear. You cannot excuse away GCM code errors with scientific papers. Your continued personal attacks only shows your desperation.

So you know, I work with several computer scientists. These guys actually work WITH the climate scientists on writing and optimizing the code - Parallel processing, all that jazz. Surprised that we thought of that?? :-) Your point is actually well taken that computer science is important. It's more than a little frustrating that folks assume we haven't THOUGHT of that. There are scads of computer scientists working side by side with climate scientists on GCMs. We're not idiots. And we don't work in isolation.

Sorry for the personal attacks. You have no idea how much I feel like I am ramming my head against brick walls when I try to explain our work to deniers. I've tried the rational, calm approach ad nauseum to no avail. It may be that you were one of those that would have actually listened to what I had to say and engaged in rational dialogue if I'd have not given in to general frustration and become rude (you don't have to believe me on this, but this is the first time I've let myself go in one of these discussions. Irrelevant, but true). It's been quite the ride - starting in this field 20+ years ago when no one cared what a atmospheric chemist was or did. Suddenly, people are coming out of the woodwork telling me that my field of science is full of propaganda and idiots and political pawns.

Then you may want to watch throwing around the loaded word "denier" if you wish to approach this from a scientific perspective. I have seen empirical evidence for a mild warming trend since the little ice age. I have seen no evidence that man-made CO2 is the primary driver. I have seen no evidence of catastrophic forcing from man-made CO2. I have seen no evidence that any remote action is necessary nor any evidence that any action will have any effect.

I fully understand what computer systems are capable and not capable of doing. GCMs have a place in climatology but in the virtual hypothetical sense they do not have a place in prediction which policy should be based. I am unimpressed with the results of GCMs regardless of how much work and effort goes into their creation. GCM code and methods should be fully 100% open if you want it taken remotely seriously. I don't see this.

The simple reason you are getting so much "heat" (no pun intended) is because of the lavish prophecies of doomsday that are utterly unsupported by science.

Mea culpa. What was I thinking? I guess I pictured you as a 12 year old and wanted to pat your head a little. Won't happen again.

Does "denier" bother you? So sorry.It's not going away.

If you were really interested I could show you exactly why your conclusions (warming trend) actually result from a very amateurish and flawed analysis. (yeah, yeah, yeah, I've seen all that crap and it's lousy science, flawed analysis, cherry-picking and misleading.)

"You have seen evidence..." Heh. You have *no* idea, my little friend. You have SEEN some stuff thrown together by those with interest in keeping the oil industry going. A few days perusing the internet is not going to make you more of an expert than thousands of scientists. You keep telling yourself that, though.

BTW - I've seen evidence of your "research" in that sloppy list of papers you say (heh) you put together. You don't even know the difference between an abstract an a scientific paper. You also didn't realize that several of those papers are supportive of AGW. What - did you use your considerable computer science skills to do a search on key words from abstracts? Might help if you actually read further than the abstract. Takes some time, though... and effort... and knowledge...

I'm sure you are VERY competent in knowing what computer *systems* are capable of. That is why you are a computer scientist. A GCM is not a computer system. (snicker). It is a computer PROGRAM based on fundamentals in physics, thermodynamics and chemistry. Let me ask you something. Have you TRIED to get ahold of any code, even, or are you just complaining. (Yep I've seen the script for you deniers. You're following if very well, actually. Good job, sheep!!)

If you got ahold of a GCM, you wouldn't have the first clue what to do with it. You don't punch the "go" key and watch it spin.

The reason we get "heat" is because sheep like you are so willing to believe the crap thrown out there by big-oil-supported groups. Too bad you're not smart enough to demand a cut of their profit. Betcha forgot that part!!!

Know what? You STILL never answered what observations GCMs can't "match." You also didn't tell me which particular GCM it was that you had seen some of this flawed analysis from. Surely you've done enough research to answer those simple questions.

Does Alarmist Propagandist bother you? Well it is not going away either.

Unfortunately I do not believe you can show me anything. As I can assure you my analysis is not flawed.

Oh yes the immaginary "thousands" of scientists *yawn*.

Oh yes back to the big oil conspiracy *yawn*.

I am well aware of what an abstract is and why I choose the papers I did. I just proved that based on the one you selected and how a fundamental ignorance in computer science could lead to any conclusion past the starting point.

Your childish ignorance on computer science thinks that any natural science application to it overrides the basic principles of computer science. This is laughable but keep playing.

Surely you have the GCM's source code fully commented and readily available for download for me? This should include all data sets, documented procedures for model runs, hardware used, firmware revisions, OS and version ect...

Please provide this if it so obvious.

Any software program, especially one used to make scientific conclusions should have all procedures fully documented so their results can be reproduced.

Also any GCM should never get different output results based on subsequent runs using the same data sets and initial settings.

GCMs cannot match ANY observations outside of propagandized "close enough" for the computer illiterates you sucker.

I firmly believe you are no scientist as your irrational conspiracy babble and anonymous posting proves that.

"Note that this public domain version of the code does not contain some of the more experimental tracer submodules (chemistry, aerosols, dust, cosmogenic isotopes, etc.) and only one of the dynamic ocean models."

"Since the simulations were originally submitted there have been a number of updates of various fields. However, PCMDI has not placed all of these new files on their public server due to space limitations."

Hope you got the link I just posted as you requested. It really wasn't that difficult to find. Makes me wonder if you ever really looked for it. Nah - 'course you would have, since you're such a good researcher.

You are really kind of cute. :-)

"Also any GCM should never get different output results based on subsequent runs using the same data sets and initial settings."

Hm. Which study are you talking about here? Surely you aren't talking out of your *ss are you?

"GCMs cannot match ANY observations outside of propagandized "close enough" for the computer illiterates you sucker."

And which observations are these, again? It's kind of difficult to converse with you since you keep mumbling. You talking surface, middle troposphere, stratosphere? What kind of spatial and temporal scales?

Lets see you link to the GISS modeling page which I already knew about and failed to provide what I requested. On the page it clearly does not have everything available are I requested and already knew. Seems odd for something GCMs propagandists are so sure of. Why jump through hoops to obtain something that should be easily available. But then again this is only one of the models used by the IPCC, where are all the others?

I am begining to think you are hard of hearing as it is clear you are no scientist Mr. Anonymous yet you feel compelled to keep posting here, interesting.

A true computer scientist knows exactly what I am talking about which is why you are so lost and failed to notice the obvious flaw in the abstract.

"Lets see you link to the GISS modeling page which I already knew about and failed to provide what I requested."

Aw, sweetie - what is it that you want? Were you interested in the isotopic submodule? Did you write and ask for it per the instructions on the site? Do you know what the isotopic submodule does and why you need it? Do you have any idea as to what to do with the code once you download it? Surely a computer scientist could figure it out!!!

Tell you what - you get going with the GISS model and once you've made progress with that one, you can start with the others. Your persistent whining is tiresome.

There was no flaw in that abstract. Your flawed interpretation of it is what was wrong. I know it's hard for you to accept that, and it probably hurts a little, but that's how it is.

Look I realize this is way over your head as you are no scientist let alone a computer scientists but this statement:

"Codes commonly used in climate and weather prediction models for calculating the transfer of solar radiation in the atmosphere show systematic differences amongst each other, and even the best of codes show systematic differences with respect to observations."

Cannot be proven irrelevant through no amount of math or statistical calculations. I realize this is what computer non-scientists such as yourself believe but that is because of your basic lack of understanding of computers.

Any reputable college educated computer scientist would have documented or commented what their code does. Natural Scientist's who can get code to compile in a language that allows errors to compile is laughable. But hey you can input mathematical calculations easy!

Tell you what once you get what I asked in the form that I asked I will begin to remotely take you seriously.

You have still not told me who you are. Though your persistent babble is amusing.

Hey kiddo - sorry, but I'm outta here. I occasionally peruse these denier types of sites to see if there's anyone around who's really interested in learning about the science of climate change. I've found a few that I've had interesting discussions with but you're boring me. All you're doing is complaining at this point.

Sorry you're not capable of working out what to do with the publicly available GISS GCM. Can't help you there kid. You asked for it and its documentation to be made available and it is. Can't help you figure out how to run it though. It's a waste of my time.

Enjoy. Take a few science classes in your spare time. You might find it interesting.

Keep spreading alarmist propaganda since you have no real science to share and have been unable to provide what I requested and instead keep repeating the same nonsense over and over. Rhetoric works well with the uneducated.

"Codes commonly used in climate and weather prediction models for calculating the transfer of solar radiation in the atmosphere show systematic differences amongst each other, and even the best of codes show systematic differences with respect to observations."

is that the solar radiation transfer codes used in the models are wrong. You cannot conclude they are irrelevant or do not effect anything else.

Model errors can be coding errors. The fact that they are not perfect makes them irrelevant for prediction. That is how computers works, they do not fill in the blanks for what you do not know.

Some codes are without error (surprisingly rare) but no model of a real physical system can be without error, because no real system is perfectly specified or closed.

The measure of a model is its utility for a purpose. The referenced paper explicitly states in the abstract that the specific error in question does not influence the specific purpose that interests you. Accordingly it does not qualify as "questioning the consensus".

OK, let's get more systematic. The first paper you mention is Lorius et al, the first dO18 ice core record from 1985. How does it question "man-made global warming", since ice core records do not show the current century?

If you cannot perfectly specify real world systems then the model is irrelevant for prediction. Especially prediction which public policy is based.

The lofty notion that a physical model representing real world systems can be freely defined away from it's obvious real world limitations by declaring some made-up "utility of purpose" just shows how far you will go to spin propaganda.

The reference paper cited SPELLS OUT that the models have faulty Solar Radiation Transfer Code! The conclusions past this point are irrelevant. Thus by stating this as fact it provides proof that GCMs have faulty code and thus AGW is based on faulty "science".

Andrew, are you really this confused, or just robotically spitting out denialist propaganda?

How in the world does the presence of natural climate variability preclude additional impacts from anthropogenic global warming. Of course there have been huge natural climate variations!!! The sun has an enormous impact on climate. We know all this. We also know that for the last several decades, the response of the atmosphere (warming trend) has begun to deviate from what is predicted for natural forcings only. Only when you include the additional forcing from anthropogenic CO2 can you explain the recent climate changes.

You know all this.

I'm wondering if you realize just how many modern things are dependent on computer simulations. What do you think about medical research, I wonder? DNA mapping? Many of these are dependent on models. Computers are much more useful than for data-entry or archival.

Well, the thing that looks a whole bunch like a consensus from inside AGU meetings and academic seminars pretty much agrees that there have been wild climate swings over the period covered by Antarctic ice cores. I've never heard anyone who supports the thing-which-is-not-a-consensus claim otherwise.

So you are up to a complete misintrepretation and a red herring.

Next up, Bond et al. 1997.

Here, you almost score. They do in fact argue for a 1500 year cycle.

"During each of these episodes, cool, ice-bearing waters from north of Iceland were advected as far south as the latitude of Britain. At about the same times, the atmospheric circulation above Greenland changed abruptly. Pacings of the Holocene events and of abrupt climate shifts during the last glaciation are statistically the same; together, they make up a series of climate shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years"

Now in fact this paper has engendered some controversy among real scientists. For our present purposes though it is probably sufficient to note that it proposes to identify abrupt cooling events every 1500 years. So this offers no support for the "unstoppable natural warming" theory.

There is no evidence from this paper that scientists at Lamont or the Swiss lab are skeptics about anthropogenic global warming.

I will grant you that many peer reviewed papers have been published that say nothing either way. Is that your point?

Establishing the precedent for natural climate variability removes the alarmist propaganda that the current climate is unusual or abnormal and thus skepticism of AGW. This also debunks Mann's propaganda.

Yes I know the Sun has an enormous impact on climate except for the last 30 years! Since then the Sun has nothing to do with it and it is all man-made CO2. Sorry if I don't buy it.

What we know is that in the last 30 years the land based temperature record is flawed due to instrument measurement errors and has been positively "adjusted" by Hansen and his crew thus the "deviation".

Natural "forcings" are not fully understood and your conclusions are again based on worthless models.

Please show me the modern medical drug, procedure or treatment that was approved for use on humans based solely on computer models.

I never said computers were not useful, I said that unless a model is 100% perfect to reality it's predictive skills are worthless.

Establishing evidence for natural climate variability is essential for skepticism of AGW as claims of the current climate being abnormal are not supported by the evidence.

First of all I did not make this post as I am far from done with my research on this. But they are clearly categorized. Thus the papers in question are for the category under them and provide evidence against various "pillars" of which the AGW theory is based and thus allow Skepticism of AGW.

"Establishing the precedent for natural climate variability removes the alarmist propaganda that the current climate is unusual or abnormal and thus skepticism of AGW. This also debunks Mann's propaganda."

"Yes I know the Sun has an enormous impact on climate except for the last 30 years! Since then the Sun has nothing to do with it and it is all man-made CO2. Sorry if I don't buy it."

Which only exposes your refusal to read facts. Sorry you're so brainwashed dearheart.

"What we know is that in the last 30 years the land based temperature record is flawed due to instrument measurement errors and has been positively "adjusted" by Hansen and his crew thus the "deviation"."

You're quite the sheep!!! Every time we answer one of your criticisms adequately, you come up with a new argument in an attempt to negate it. It's either the models or the instruments or the scientists or maybe the length of skirts in relation to the stock market. SOMETHING must work!!! SOMETHING must prove that the majority of scientists are wrong! If I close my eyes and wish hard upon a star then it WILL. BE. SO.

You're so funny.

"Establishing evidence for natural climate variability is essential for skepticism of AGW as claims of the current climate being abnormal are not supported by the evidence."

And the whoozit's implication of the normal versus abnormal deviations of every statistical whim is a verdict upon stat.

(tit for tat you know, Andrew...Tit for tat)

"First of all I did not make this post as I am far from done with my research on this."

"Please show me the modern medical drug, procedure or treatment that was approved for use on humans based solely on computer models."

This question is not relevant. Or, put another way: Please show me where climate scientists have based their conclusions solely on computer models. Clearly, you are ignorant of the broad range of research that has been done on climate change. It's not all based on climate models. Surprised?

Check this out:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

Of course, I'm sure you'll refer to your denialist handbook and come up with SOMEHING in an attempt to confuse - if it's not the models then it MUST be the observations. It's a giant conspiracy, you see. Thousands of scientists are IN ON IT!!! Must be the same ones who covered up that the US never landed on the moon!!!!!

FWIW, you really don't need the isotopic and other submodules that you THINK you need in order to run it. In fact, I've found several discussions online where folks have downloaded the code as is from the website and have used it. Sorry your skills aren't quite up to the task. It's actually not that easy - takes some knowledge.

Tell me again how "Andrew" gives me any more information about you than "Anonymous" gives??? Call me "Rex" if it makes you happier.

You make as much sense with that complaint as you do with your humorous attempts at portraying yourself as some kind of "expert" on anything.

I gave you what you want silly boy. You're just not smart enough to know what to do with it. You've got the code for a GCM. You're just unable to understand it. (Which isn't surprising.) Go, download it, and do your excellent analysis of it and THEN get back to me. Until then, I continue to view you as a 12 year old, foot stomping, whining kid.

"I did not realize this was complicated but AGW theory relies on various certanties, one of which is that the current warming is outside the scope of natural variability of past warming."

Hey Sparky!!!!I see nothing wrong with that sentence - good job. Therefore, you must finally understand the point that the many papers you've included in your "list" that are focused solely on understanding the historic natural variability and do not even mention current climate in no way are making a statement on AGW. Might as well include papers on the biology of the daisy if you're including those...Excellent.

Keep the focus on things other than science (like whether a poster uses a name like "Anonymous". Try to convince folks that things like that are relevant. Don't let anyone think too much about your arguments). Keep changing your complaints (focusing too long on any one topic will only reveal the fallacy of your arguments). Stay with generalities (e.g. state that GCMs can't model ANYTHING!!!! Don't discuss specific concerns. If you get specific, intelligent discussion might actually ensue and you don't want discussion again, because the fallacy of your arguments will be revealed.

Still Anonymous? Is creating a Blogger account too hard for you? When you learn how to use a computer get back to me. Your fake science credentials do not impress me. Oh and do not take my lack of response to your points as agreement in anyway I just avoid pointless debates with anonymous users that can be multiple posters. If you continue posting anonymously I will not respond to your posts.

For future debates, you might want to remember to read papers before categorizing them as anti-AGW. You're not doing your "cause" any good by posting such incredibly sloppy research.

I've got a lot more respect for those skeptical of AGW who have actually thought about the problem than those like you who are ignorantly repeating propaganda and who haven't had an original thought of their own.

A word of advice - spend a little bit of time each day thinking critically. And read papers. Don't rely on key words or abstracts. That's how you got yourself into trouble this time.

Even the guys are RealClimate have the balls to say who they are. Instead the imaginary scientist who could be a completely different propagandist each time desperately keeps posting over and over.

A word of advice learn how to create a Google account. Again I will not answer questions from an anonymous poster and by me not responding to your statements in no way means I REMOTELY agree with anything you say. For the record everything you have said so far I disagree with and can back it up, just not against imaginary opponents. Instead I will debate where I know my opponent is the same person each time and not some alarmist child like here with an imaginary Ph.D.

"Again I will not answer questions from an anonymous poster and by me not responding to your statements in no way means I REMOTELY agree with anything you say."

Hey - that's what you said before!!! (the "I will not answer you anymore" stuff)

And also - don't worry. I would be very disappointed in you if you suddenly agreed with me. Your official denialist handbook would be taken away!! You'd donate all your money to Al Gore!! You'd actually learn some science!!! :-)

Well, I, fool that I am, am signing my name, and have a genuine PhD in the subject.

I wonder how many of your papers are actually 1) peer reviewed and 2) explicitly skeptical of man-made global warming.

So far we are what, 0 for 5?

Papers that you read things into don't count. Show us papers that actually say what you claim they say.

For what it's worth, I think Oreskes undercounted.

There are at least a dozen such papers, I reckon, maybe two dozen, among the many thousands of climate papers published since the first IPCC report. Did any of them make your list, or are you just pasting stuff at random?

Show us explicit text from **even one paper** and we can start talking science. Until then you are blowing smoke.

Now you are changing the argument as I never used the word explicit. I have clearly defended my position on why they were included. The categories should give you a hint. You are reading into things I never stated as I never made this post here in the first place. I cannot make it any more clear.

...reminds me of the Inhofe 400, or more specifically, social anthropolgist Benny Peiser's poor attempt to come up with studies that challenge the consensus view.

The list here is a mix of

1. Old studies from the 1980's or early 90's - not particularly relevant to today

2. Studies published in dubious journals (i.e. "Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology") or journals not particularly related to climate science (i.e. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering). Many here are published in "Energy & Environment", a known denier journal that publishes sub-standard papers. It's editorial board is filled with those with a particular extreme ideological slant. It's thus no surprise it's not carried on ISI's Journal Citation Report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment

3. Studies that discuss specific effects of future warming

4. Studies that don't argue against the consensus view (the vast majority of them)

For instance, aside from 1 or 2 (the Soon/Baliunas study being seen as a massive failure of the peer review process by the editors of the journal it was published in), the studies in the "solar" section discuss solar variation, a known forcing in past and current climate change, yet don't argue against the consensus that most of the recent warming is due to human activities. In fact, solar forcing has had at most a negligible effect in recent decades, negative over the last 20 years.

Hey "Andrew", just so you don't get confused, that last post from Anonymous (while I wish I wrote it because it is a nice concise summary of your list) isn't from me, your favorite Anonymous poster (aka Dr. Rex).

I know you were worried (for whatever reason) about not knowing if "Anonymous" was more than one person, so I'm letting you know up front.

I do not have a Blogger account, so I'm posting anonymously. However, I recommend closing anonymous postings here and deleting all anonymous posts.

Why? Because the science is clear enough here- we don't know why the earth goes through ice ages or interglacials. For most Earth history since the Paleozoic, there have been no ice caps. The GCMs don't explain the 1930's worth a darn either. All of their success stories depend on curve-guessing and handwavery. The truth is that the models are useless and we really don't know why.

So why delete 'anonymous'? Because there's no way of holding any given person responsible for their statements, and such power without responsibility leads inexorably to the following proof: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

When someone starts mumbling about oil company conspiracies, a can of comment-nuke is in order. Peace out, I'm out, and so should you.

"Hey "Andrew", just so you don't get confused, that last post from Anonymous (while I wish I wrote it because it is a nice concise summary of your list) isn't from me, your favorite Anonymous poster (aka Dr. Rex)."

Sorry. The post you're referring to is mine. I'll sign it going forward, although I'm not sure I'll be wasting more time with this.

aka "Dr. Rex",I wish you would continue posting, as anonymous or whatever. Your disrepect for any opposing opinion is very revealing. Do you have any opinions on the other hundreds of articles posted here? Can you offer anything other than personal insults? Pick a subject, and if you can be civil......we can have at it.

Are we supposed to have respect for any opposing opinion even if it makes no sense?

Hundreds of articles are linked here but so far nobody can point to one line of text in any of them that is both peer reviewed and is skeptical of anthropogenic climate change.

I suspect there are a few. So given all the research, I welcome seeing them. I supect that the fellow compiling the list hasn't read beyond the abstracts of a single one of them.

Adding papers supporting ancillary points to which all agree, specifically that natural change has happened in the past, is padding the list, and it's either dishonest or ignorant. How would you like me to put that respectfully?

The existence of natural climate variations doesn't imply that what we are now seeing is natural. Given the huge anthropogenic spike in greenhouse gases observed, we expect anthropogenic warming, so you need a strong theory explaining why we needn't worry about it. So far. things are panning out pretty much exactly as was predicted twenty years ago, so it's hard to say the burden of proof is still on us if you're actually thinking carefully.

Lacking a strong argument you are occasionally going to run into people who do know what they are talking about trying to explain how thoroughly you don't. Sorry if this hurts your feelings. If you want respect, please come up with some evidence or at least some critique of published evidence.

Have any of you read any of the referenced papers? As I've said before, play by the rules and we can discuss the evidence. Wild guesses about what we do say and shy doesn't amount to a serious examination of the facts.

The question is who's got their minds made up unfairly. I think that would be the people happy to rage about this without having studied it.

Anonymous,Are you addressing me, or are you just generalizing? This is a difficult place to have a fair discussion. Why don't you have a look around my blog. Do a search on Roy Spencer. He's a peer-reviewed PhD. Meteorologist...and very skeptical of the myth of man-caused global warming. Surely you know him.Look for some articles by Dr. Roger Pielke,Sr. and Roger Pielke,Jr......both PhD.....both professors and experts in climatology.....both "peer-reviewed".....both "skeptics".

In fact their are numerous articles here, lists of prestigious skeptics....look around...and get back with me. Anonymous, whoever you are, I'm afraid it is you who is either trying to cover up the truth...you can't be that ignorant that you think there really is a "consensus" among scientists, or anyone, about the causes of global warming.

I don't have disrespect of opposing opinions. I have disrespect for people like you and "Andrew" who clearly don't understand the background of climate science yet persist in trying to denigrade that work. I have disrespect for people who email around "NEWS FLASHES" they build up around junk science, trying to elevate it to something real. I have disrespect for twisting words, misrepresentation of science and dishonesty.

>Do you have any opinions on the >other hundreds of articles posted >here?

Yes, I've actually read many of them in my research. They make no comment about current climate, which is why I believe your list is a total joke. I am sure that many of the authors would be puzzled and horrified that you use their work as so called "evidence" that there is no consensus on AGW. It's beyond misleading and dishonest. THAT is why you piss me off so much. The appropriate question is whether YOU have read these articles. Apparently not.

>Can you offer anything other than >personal insults?

Yep. Occasionally.

>Pick a subject, and if you can be >civil......we can have at it.

Nope. I'm not changing your mind and you most certainly aren't changing mine. There's nothing potential to be accomplished here but insults and after a while of playing at that, I have a nasty taste in my mouth.

By the way, the other anonymous poster seems to know what they're talking about - you might enjoy discourse with him/her.

Pielke. Yes of course I've heard of him. Even Pielke is strongly convinced that the current climate is out of whack with what would be expected from natural causes.

“Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.”

I disagree with his conclusion that CO2 forcing is not dominant, but agree that there are various other forcings that have been contributed by humans that are impacting the climate.

He goes on:

“Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.

These conclusions are different from those who claim that the global average radiative effect of carbon dioxide is by far the major human climate forcing, as well as from those who conclude that natural climate variations dominate climate change and that the human climate forcings are inconsequential."

I hope you read that last part. He does not believe human climate forcing are inconsequential.

Again, his belief that CO2 is not dominant is in the minority amongst climate scientists. But at least he's not shrilly denying that anything is happening or that CO2 is doing nothing and that it's all natural.

Yes I've read Pielke's position, and he's as much of a skeptic as anyone. He's just polite about it, in public at least. You don't want to debate anything. You want to bully, insult and harrass....that's fine.....take it somewhere else....there's no loss...you've adequately demonstrated your head in the sand bias and sewer rat vicious character.....and I'll bet you're the first to claim the myth of man-caused global warming should not be a political issue...sweet dreams.

When you can manage to do a "RUN" of your "SUITE" that actually "MODELS" our Climate, get back to us.

Until then, you are a 12 year old playing at being a scientist and trying to be the HERO that saves mean old humanity from itself!!

By the way, NASA just announced the PDO changing. I guess CHAOTIC WEATHER is about to cover up MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING AGAIN! For the next 30 YEARS!!!!

When you supporters of modelers can actually show you understand the highly complex interactions that you are now using FUDGE FACTORS, uhhh, I mean PARAMETERS for, you may have something to contribute.

Now, go and play nice with the rest of the children who can play with computers.

Anon/Dr Rex or whomever,I'd LOVE to discuss the science of AGW with you. You read like a true believer, Sweetheart. What IS obvious from your postings is that you are here neither to educate nor to learn. You're not here looking for that "Diamond in the rough" poster who is undecided and may "learn" something from you. You are here to argue, Pumpkin. Which is fine I suppose. If that's what you really need to bolster your emotional well being, and personal self confidence, ok. As a fence-sitter turned skeptic, I invite you to "show me the error of my ways." Let's begin, shall we...Teddybear.DocNavy

Well, that's not a suprising statement coming from an Alarmist. Apperently you feel you already KNOW everything there is to know... A position that even the most harcore Pro-AGW researchers won't take. And you guys call skeptics "Arrogant". You take the cake, Sweetcheeks. Since you can't seem to start a conversation, I guess I'll lead, and you can tell me where I am wrong. Please understand that I'll be expecting linked references to support your positions, and I'll give you mine. Using the, "Everyone knows it, it's the Consensus" argument won't fly, neither will the, "Because I said so" argument. References.. please. let's start.. here:

-CO2, contrary to Alarmist statments, is NOT "highly correleted" to historical nor current "Global" temperatures.-

Ok, GO!... How am I wrong in making that statement?DocNavyPS: Until proven otherwise, I'm going to consider your *personal* experience with "Climate researchers" to be complete BS. You'll get no points with me for CLAIMING to be something you can't prove.

"Apperently you feel you already KNOW everything there is to know... "

(misspelling not mine)

Nah. You misinterpreted (what a surprise). What I said was I wasn't HERE to learn.

Nope no conversations with you. If you think I'm going to get into a "discussion" with a bunch of frustrated, close-minded science wannabes who have no intention of doing anything but insult and pretend they're superior, then you're more dense than I'd even imagined.

Hey look - I found out what I wanted to find out. You really ARE that nasty as I'd imagined. I won't be perusing any more dee-nialist blogs. Bleah.

So look, it's been "fun" and enlightening. Enjoy playing with each other. I'm done with with this "web site" (by the way Pete - don't pretend this doesn't thrill you. You've had more comments on this silly thread than for the last few years combined)

Wow,That was quick. Guess when asked to provide something more authoritative than her BS, “Well ~I~ work for Climate Scientists, therefore my opinion bears more weight than yours” statements… she realized she couldn’t hang, and cut-bait.See you on the flip side, 'Darling’Doc

Doc,The global warming alarmists just can not seem to sustain a debate on the subject without getting emotional resorting to personal insults and attacks. I think this shows their insecurity and lack of confidence in what they are preaching.

It would be fun to see Al Gore in a debate with someone who knows the science. But Al Gore is too smart to be involved in an honest open debate. He knows he'd get his A$$ kicked.

Well done. I find when debating the brainwashed Man-Made Global Warming crowd. The most powerful tactic is to expose their politics. I find that most of them could really care less about the science, and most of them realize the power of the debate has the ability to destroy the American Economy, and institute their communistic desires. Because if you haven't noticed according to the rest of the world, and the general American Population all the worlds problems are caused by George Bush and the Evil Empire called the United States of America. It should have obvious to everyone, that when the great American Scientist Al Gore, who invented the internet, introduced this debate to the general American Population, that this debate originated with a Political Agenda, and is driven by Politicians.

This is a great string. The global warming alarmists, who are so ready to declare the debate over, who are so ready to speak of scientific 'consensus' and who are so ready to throw their support behind political activist causes like a DDT ban or the Kyoto Protocol, disprove their own argument of consensus through this and other forums.

My doctorates aren't in climatology or meteorology, but in law and computer science. As such, I can follow a model, and I know the difference between 'evidence' and 'conjecture.' Is this debate settled? Hardly. Is there evidence of Man-made global warming? No. Is there any global warming at all? Wow, that depends on whom you ask. What causes climate changes? A myriad of factors. Could we change the climate if we wanted to? Unlikely. We're a long way from a consensus. Anyone who argues to the contrary is intentionally wearing blinders. Why would someone do this? I can only imagine it's for a motivation other than scientific research. Is it to save the world? That answer belongs immediately after the bikini contest at a beauty pageant, along with "world peace." The motivation here is for capital, either financial or political. I'm sure "green" grants are big business in research departments right now. I wonder how future generations will look at our wasteful spending on rediculous 'alternatives' to our vast energy resources.

I suppose that's a long rant, but my conclusion is that voices of reason, questioning the obvious bias of our "green" media, are very valuable. Information is power. Thank you for this thread and others like them, Andrew. Well done.

I don't know whether to be pissed off or just jealous that Mr. Climatologist here actually gets paid to be annoyingly patronizing while telling people that they are stupid and brainwashed for questioning the science and pointing out possible flaws. I'll bet you're at "work" doing "research" right now. Enjoy your dinner tonight, my fucking tax dollars paid for it. :(

The GCM 'utility' for actual science is quite small. That is, beyond the GIGO-prone-groupthink error of giving fearmnongerers ammunition to scare people into 'urgent action' and other politicized agenda-driven ends.

The problem with GCM-based predictions is that it assumes the conclusion - the sensitivity of temperature to CO2 increases is the variable, and the GCM make assumption about feedback, amplifying the CO2 impact by 4X, right up front. Running the model is just prettying up the details, but it neither proves nor establishes those input assumptions - it merely assumes them. This is done on the back of other model assumptions, without corresponding proof. It is left to other work to justify those assumptions - and it is there where the global warming theory is weak.

In science, we like occam's razor - simplicity is bliss. Already, temperature trends have already disproven the more extreme sensitivity numbers in the models. The log relation between CO2 levels and its warming impact tells us that the 35% increase from 290ppm to 380ppm should equate to the next 35% increase. The temperature record is on of about 0.4-0.5C increase in 50 years, and much of that may in fact be natural in any case. that means doubling CO2 would increase CO2 by *AT MOST* 3X the 0.4-0.5C amount or 1.2-1.5C. Coincidently, this is the number you get if you dont overload the GCMs with 4X feedback effects from water vapor. In short, the straight direct, simple back-of-envelope calculation would give you a similar number - a non-scary non-crisis number. Hmmmm. But not the number in the models.

As another C.S. PhD, my skepticism of such scientific charlatanism is based on knowledge of how you can 'game' models. For example, one 'tell' is the number of variables to tweak. With enough variables, you can curve-fit and hindcast just about any complex function, and voila - they've got a bunch. Yet with all the variables, they couldnt seem to figure out correctly the last decade of temperature trends, predicting 3 to 4 times the warming that occured. Why?

Facts are stubborn things, and when you have facts and models not aligned - facts should win, even over a blizzard of peer-reviewed papers that assume the conclusion, the stammering lie that the 'debate is over', and appeals to authority ad nauseum.

If the models were unable to predict this - they are garbage and should be tossed out:

"The global warming alarmists just can not seem to sustain a debate on the subject without getting emotional resorting to personal insults and attacks. I think this shows their insecurity and lack of confidence in what they are preaching."

I agree. I too would love to see a *real* open debate on global warming pro vs con from both sides. I think the smarmyness and the appeals to authority, which are known logical fallacies, fall flat.

I find it very interesting, the politics involved. It kind of reminds me of the catholic church back in the old days, and things such as the spanish inquisition and putting Galileo under house arrest. The hard part is that it's on both sides.It is virtually impossible to be able to get a peer review acceptance on any article that says that global warming is a hoax, no matter how much evidence there is. If you disagree with the IPCC, it is impossible to get funding for any kind of climate research. So who can a so called "denier" go to for funding for any kind of research? The only people who would be interested in funding their research would be oil companies. Therefore, not only do they not get peer reviewed status, but they also have to deal with the mockery that comes from being funded by someone from an oil company.But then, oil companies would be willing to pay good money to have scientists back them up, wouldn't they?So would politicians. Anyone getting funding from them would easily also be accused of being a yes-man.

I would like to draw attention to a few events.One is Alfred Wegner's discovery and hypothesis that the continents may at one point in time have been connected to each other. He had absolutely astounding evidence for it, including continuity of mountain belts, glacial origins and continuity, correlation of fossil records, and many other things. When he presented it to the scientific community, they laughed at him. It wasn't until Hess' work and discovery of sea floor spreading that Wegner's hypothesis was given any credibility. Interesting is it not?Second, it was only fairly recently that Galileo was posthumously pardoned by the catholic church and "released from purgatory." Funny, but sad.

I also forgot to mention... How many of you know who Edwin Hubble is? The Hubble Space Telescope is named after him. He was very good at math and with all sorts of numbers. He was the one who accurately measured the distance to galaxies and discovered a red shift in all distant galaxies, which led to the expanding universe theory (formerly known as the "big bang.") How many of you think he was an astronomer by profession? Probably most of you who read this. And you would all be wrong. He was in fact a lawyer by profession. And he won a Nobel Prize for his observations and discoveries in astronomy. Many of you are probably also familiar with Watson and Crick. They discovered the structure of DNA, and neither of them were geneticists. They beat the lead guy to the discovery, simply by chance. I am convinced that whoever figures out the whole global warming thing will not be a climatologist.

Wow I see someone just like j. trodel who likes to pose as an educated idiot has been doing a lot of posting here, often promising not to continue yet continuing just the same.

The thing I notice most about the GCMs is THEY DON'T AGREE! Using their output as "TRUE" is a lot like taking all the "special needs" kids you can find, putting them in a room, giving them a math test, averaging their answers and proclaiming that to be what is correct.

Two of the problems with GCMs, as I understand it, are that, first, they're simply too coarse. To be fine enough to adequately represent reality - well we simply do not have the computing power to come close. Second, they're constructed with built in flaws based on wrong assumptions which, of course, are what the whole exercise is designed to prove in the first place (that CO2 causes a great deal more warming than it really does) so of course the problem will never be fixed until those doing the modeling accept that maybe they need to take out the huge CO2 warming terms or at least tone them down by several orders of magnitude - then maybe, just maybe, a GCM might be able to actually get temperature AND precipitation right at the same time, FOR ONCE!

I was basing my response on the hand-wavy, undereducated tone of your own posts. I was only trying to write slowly enough that you might be able to follow.

(GASP!!!!)

Oh my. Take away my PhD from Georgia Tech then. OBVIOUSLY a computer scientists knows this stuff better than I. I've only been researching it for 20 years. You must be a really, really smart guy. Oooh, I'm in total awe. You even use a few scientific words sometimes and I'm generous so I'll ignore your foolishness.

LOL!!!!

You are a clever, clever one. Clearly more clever than the thousands of scientists researching this.

Snazzy.

(LOL!!!!!!!!!! Oh my).

Ah. I see. You're one of those.

(snort)

Good lord.

You're just not used to reading scientific papers, are you?

TWO

Hey dude.

Keep those fingers in your ears and if you should NYA NYA NYA loudly enough, you might enjoy it more.""Sounding a little defensive there, sweetie. I believe you! I bet you are a REALLY smart guy. Really.

Oooh, I'll keep that in mind. I never even THOUGHT of these great arguments that smart people like you are throwing around. That "sun causes all climate change" one? You know - I wonder if anyone has even thought to research that one. Ya think?

(smile)

What, are you like 12 or something?

Which is why you should stick to computer science. Obviously. Maybe when you finish up high school (or are you in community college yet?) you can take a course in a real science. It's really interesting and you'll learn a lot!!!!

A rational interlude

Sorry for the personal attacks. You have no idea how much I feel like I am ramming my head against brick walls when I try to explain our work to deniers. I've tried the rational, calm approach ad nauseum to no avail. It may be that you were one of those that would have actually listened to what I had to say and engaged in rational dialogue if I'd have not given in to general frustration and become rude (you don't have to believe me on this, but this is the first time I've let myself go in one of these discussions. Irrelevant, but true). It's been quite the ride

THREE

Mea culpa. What was I thinking?

I guess I pictured you as a 12 year old and wanted to pat your head a little. Won't happen again.

Does "denier" bother you? So sorry.

I'm sure you are VERY competent in knowing what computer *systems* are capable of. That is why you are a computer scientist. A GCM is not a computer system. (snicker).

Unrequited - A romantic interlude

Dear Andrew, You are really kind of cute.

:-)

(sob) I'm going to have a hard time sleeping now. LOL!!!

You have fun playing, little one.

Aw, sweetie - what is it that you want?

You poor guy!!! So frustrated, so frustrated. But I'm amusing you so I'm sure that helps. Glad to help.

Baa, baaa.

------------------------

Edited by Dr. Abu Chowdah from a selection of Anonymous' more sonorous bleatings.

Hey kiddo - sorry, but I'm outta here. I occasionally peruse these denier types of sites to see if there's anyone around who's really interested in learning about the science of climate change. I've found a few that I've had interesting discussions with but you're boring me. All you're doing is complaining at this point.

Enjoy. Take a few science classes in your spare time. You might find it interesting.

Hugs and kisses

Sorry you're so brainwashed dearheart.

You're quite the sheep!!! Every time we answer one of your criticisms adequately, you come up with a new argument in an attempt to negate it. It's either the models or the instruments or the scientists or maybe the length of skirts in relation to the stock market. SOMETHING must work!!! SOMETHING must prove that the majority of scientists are wrong! If I close my eyes and wish hard upon a star then it WILL. BE. SO.

You're so funny.

And the whoozit's implication of the normal versus abnormal deviations of every statistical whim is a verdict upon stat.

(tit for tat you know, Andrew...Tit for tat)

LOL!!! Research!!?? Do you know what that means, dearheart?

You're a piece of work, dear.

:-)

Of course, I'm sure you'll refer to your denialist handbook and come up with SOMEHING in an attempt to confuse - if it's not the models then it MUST be the observations. It's a giant conspiracy, you see. Thousands of scientists are IN ON IT!!! Must be the same ones who covered up that the US never landed on the moon!!!!!

Silly, silly one.

TWO

I gave you what you want silly boy. You're just not smart enough to know what to do with it."

Until then, I continue to view you as a 12 year old, foot stomping, whining kid.

The moon thing? Are you kidding me? You misinterpret sarcasm too?

THREE - a bi-polar ending

Hey Sparky!!!!

LOL - you're a trip. I bore of this cat and mouse game. You were too easy.

There seems to be a distinct lack of ability to think for one's self on this sort of blog. Not very suprised...

Love, Your true Sweetheart, Pumpkin, Teddybear

Hugs and kisses, lovey

Hey look - I found out what I wanted to find out. You really ARE that nasty as I'd imagined. I won't be perusing any more dee-nialist blogs. Bleah.

FOUR

Ciao.

Commence insults.

------------------------

Edited by Dr. Abu Chowdah from a selection of Anonymous' more sonorous bleatings.

Can here from a link on a political site. No real side yet. My observations.

1. The poster Dr. Rex anon comes off as a big time jerk. I started to doubt if he/she was a scientist at all. My experience is that this personality type has no problems whatsoever falsifying data to achieve results.

2. My idea of this site is that it shows people do question the man-made global warming claims. They don't deny that it exists, but they question the extremism it's proponents adopt. The fact that retired people feel free to comment and salaried don't so much should alarm every one. Recipe for bias.

3. If someone calls someone a denier they have moved the discussion into political realms and assigned themselves the roll of alarmist or gulliblist.

4. For the general public you want to establish the facts in a simple progressive manner.climates change rapidly every 1500 years or so in spite of humans. But that doesn't mean humans don't cause problems today.

5. I think modeling even with flaws is an assist to the human mind. Much like an auto with a gas gauge and a speedometer. Those are machines modeling behavior and reporting to us. The gas gauge can break and give us faulty info but we can still reach our destination with some confidence by using the speedometer and knowledge of mpg.

After seeing your Blog I can say that it’s very nice and its content is also very nice. WoW Gold is the topic which I like most to write about.I fact Iwas looking for information regarding Wow Gold and I reached in your blog. But very nice Blog.I liked it.

Great list of articles written by the same people. Nice work, did this take 3 google searches or 4? Can you tell me why statements by national and international scientific orgs have publically agreed with AGW?

Such ignoranance laced with whiny sarcasm. National and international "scientific orgs" are political organizations, and as such they must "toe the party line", meaning they cater to the myth of man-caused global warming or they will lose funding. Follow the money, take your head out of the sand and stop being a "sheep".

The charade of man-caused global warming is nearing an end because it has little if any veritable basis in science. Peter

Hi,Could you please provide the source you used for this post?There's an academic discussion going on and I would like to cite this list, but it would be helpful to know the author of the list in order to add credibility to it.Thanks,Francisco

Andrew,Thank you for clarifying the source of this list and adding to it. I could remove it if you wish, but since it seems to generate some open debate I prefer to leave it as is. People can freely go to your blog for more information.Thanks again,Peter

Dear Peter—I happened upon your website and this thread thru a google search about peer reviewed climate change articles. Your site has a lot of great information (without being too ‘scientific’) for me to use again the ‘green alarmists’ that I know. The commenters on your website are also very knowledgeable. So I am hoping that you, or one of your commenters, could point me in the direction of a good creationist website (or even intelligent design), because I also need some resources against the evolutionists that I know.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my request personally, Peter.

I’m sure you agree with me, but I can respect that you do not want to mix science and religion because a lot of people do get very upset about religious issues. Although, from looking at your website, I can see that you don’t mind mixing science and politics -- don’t worry, I hate Al Gore and all the liberals and Democrats too. [And now, thanks to one of your posts, I hate Al Gore III also.]

But, you know, everything is based upon belief and things are proven one way or another by individual biases, so I hope you will reconsider because the conspirators behind ‘climate change’ are the same ones behind ‘man-came-from-monkeys evolution’ and the ‘big bang’. They censor religion and capitalism (and, dare I say, the American way) by keeping out those who know the truth and oppose their views.

If you haven’t seen it yet, you should check out the movie ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ (released in 2008 and features Ben Stein, who also does not buy the ‘climate change’ junk science). The film shows how the scientists who question Darwinism are treated just like the people who question ‘climate change’. And the film embarrasses several prominent Darwinists. It is fun to watch.

Anyway, that is my contribution to the truth on your website for today. None of your commenters have replied to my request for creationist links yet, so maybe I will try posting it on a more recent thread.

Thanks and God bless you again for fighting the lies --Jason in Georgia

I am also a believer in creation (I'm a roman catholic christian) and I have no objection to admit, if science discovers it, that we have primate ancestors. This would not affect the reality of creation nor the truth of the Bible.

In fact, You can talk about creation and evolution from the two points of view, but you should not mix them.The religion point of view would deal with the the question:Has man appeared on earth by chance or is there a creator and therefore we are here because God created us out of pure love for his creatures?This is a religious/philosophic question which science cannot answer (it only can discover how did it happen - evolution or whatelse.

Therefore, you can actually say at the same time that God created us out of love - that we are not a product of chance and that He may have used biologic mechanisms (like evolution) in order to create men.

Evolution is perfectly compatible with christian faith as long as it does not fall into "evolutionism". Evolutionism goes beyond physical science and turns out to be an ideology/religion: It states that there is ONLY biologic facts, that there is no divine providence behind the natural phenomena. In brief, that we are a fruit of chance.

You can see clearly the difference of focus in the Genesis book of the Bible. It says profound philosophical truths about the nature of creation, of man, of the origin of evil, of God, of God's original plan for men, etc, but not scientific truths. It is not its purpose to teach science. This is, by the way, the position of the Catholic church on the issue of evolution: There is no problem if science discovers that men came from primats. But what we DO know from faith is that we are a fruit of God's love and not of chance.If God wanted to create men directly from dust or from primats, no problem with that. Let science discover the "how".The thing which faith tells us is that we are fundamentally different from primates and that somewhere along the history line a spiritual being started existing. What faith tells us is that spirituality cannot originate from matter by itself but comes from God.

Therefore, I would say: let scientists find out the "how". Luckily, the "why" you already know from religion.

Anon,The idea of man-caused global warming is junk science. I won't even dignify the concept by calling it a theory. It is not remotely "scientific". Science requires a theory to be tested and found to produce predictable and repeatable results.

The evolutionary theory is extremely well-founded and is used every day to produce tangible and repeatable results. The myth of man-caused global warming is not remotely comparable to evolution.

The concept of man-caused global warming, or man-caused climate change, is like a religion with all the fervor and passion and few facts to support it.

Not to be contrary, but if one looks at Science (where a good number of these articles come from) one can also find peer-reviewed articles which support global warming. For instance:CLIMATE CHANGE: Global Warming Is Changing the World Richard A. Kerr Science 13 April 2007 316: 188-190 [DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5822.188] (in News Focus)

An international climate assessment finds for the first time that humans are altering their world and the life in it by altering climate; looking ahead, global warming's impacts will only worsen.

By the way, Pete, didn't you recently write that peer review was bogus "I know it, you know it, they know it"?

I have just read this whole thread and think it is hilarious. And sorry I am a different "Anonymous" but just can't be bothered registering. The funny part is the argument over whose IP the list of skeptic articles is. Like that is the most important issue in the debate. Whether you honestly believe the planet is dying from global warming or that the economic consequences of alarmist policies will be our ruin wtf does it matter who put a list of other peoples papers together to support their argument???

I am not a climate scientist or a scientist of any kind but if I get the gist of the abstract posted at the top of the comments:1. The results of models of global climate simulation differ with each other and with observations.How much they differ is not mentioned in the abstract, but unlike a denialist I'm not going to make an assumption it is so great that it blows AGW out of the water. (I'll wager the article is talking about small discrepancies).2. The main cause of the discrepancies is "the energy exchange terms between the surface and atmosphere..." etc., not CO2.In other words, if I understand it correctly, the deviations between model results is not down to the value of CO2 but other values. All it seems to suggest is more research needs to be done on convection between higher and lower layers of atmosphere.

Ian Pulsford,You're not getting it. First off, you reveal your ignorance by using the term "denialist". Those who question the validity of the idea of man-caused global warming are denying nothing. The term "denier" was used by a journalist because of its emotional linkage to the holocaust in an effort to demonize true global warming skeptics.

You also don't seem to get the point that global warming believers have consistently claimed that "all peer-reviewed" articles support the idea of man-caused global warming. This is an outright lie.

You should also know that the recent leaked Emails, known as ClimateGate, clearly reveal how these leading "climate scientists" manipulated and controlled the peer review process so only articles supporting their view were published. This is not "science", it is fraud and in any other venue would be criminal. Yet this is covered up or ignored by the mainstream media.

The idea of man-caused global warming is completely unsupported by real scientific evidence. The issue has become nearly totally politicized and sucked in admittedly ignorant and naive people such as yourself. There is hope for you if you educated yourself on the issue.

Ian Pulsford,"Vindicated"???? By who? The same corrupt organiztions that have supported the myth of man-caused global warming all along; that's who! They're desperately defending their own. This "vindication" is worthless, a sham.

The real "deniers" are those who have been living off this man-caused global warming myth for decades. Billions upon Billions have been spent (wasted) in an attempt to convince the public and tax-loving liberal politicians that climate change is man-caused and such a threat that they, the "climate science" liars and cheats need even more money, more grants, more money from hard-working taxpayers.

It is way past time to expose and punish, (yes, punish, to the full extent of the law) and totally discredit these so-called "climate scientists". They do not deserve the name scientists, they are political pawns at best, stooges and criminals at worst. Cut off their funding, fire all these professors teaching garbage. Embarrass the mainstream media for being fooled. I could go on and on....it is truly the biggest scandal of all time.

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading..World of Warcraft

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading..tibia goldtibia gold

OK, so we have a huge list of articles, and the blog author claims that they all disprove AGW. The problem is, that he didn't read those articles. Basicaly he just dropped a huge list of some articles, claiming, that they all disprove AGW and hoping that no one would check (also checking isn't that easy – quite a lot of links just don't work, and others provide just abstract).

And just look, what is said in that article:"Our review points out the enormousscientific difficulties facing the calculation of climatic effects of added CO2 in a GCM, but it DOES NOT CLAIM TO DISPROVE a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate."

So, blog author takes article which says that it DOES NOT CLAIM to disprove AGW, and claims, that this article disproves AGW. Well, really trustworthy blog, without saying :DDD

I love reading through your blog, I wanted to leave a little comment to support you and wish you a good continuation. Wishing you the best of luck for all your blogging efforts.Interesting post and thanks for sharing.

Congratulations "here are many "Peer-Reviewed" articles that should end the belief that "the debate is over" about global warming. It should also destroy the illusion that there is a "consensus" amongst scientists about the causes of global warming."

Global warming is the most discussed issue at forums.Its good to see lot many people are aware of the hazards of Global warming.There is a need to join hands to eradicate this problem to secure the future of our next generation.

"The idea of man-caused global warming is completely unsupported by real scientific evidence. The issue has become nearly totally politicized and sucked in admittedly ignorant and naive people such as yourself. There is hope for you if you educated yourself on the issue."

As I understand, human are also a factor that affect to the rising of global warming issue. The resolution to this concern must start in each of us as well since we are the one living on earth who has the capacity to take care of it.How to insulate gable walls

I think it is a brave act to come out and open up such a debate. There are many people who are just looking for another cause to dedicate their life when all else fails. I think that people do not realize one thing. The earth is so wast and so long history that it is impossible for human kind to change the course in short few years. It is correct to be concerned but it is nonsense to shout that sky is falling

Interesting point of view. There are many people who are just looking for another cause to dedicate their life when all else fails. I think that people do not realize one thing. The earth is so wast and so long history that it is impossible for human kind to change the course in short few years.

Hi I just finished reading through your blog and I am rather impressed. I actually do have a few questions for you personally though. Are you thinking about performing a follow-up article about this? Will you be likely to keep posting as well? find a job

I enjoy this nice quash telephone lookup or else mobile phone search or else phone number search spot. I know how to understand a momentous deal of reverse phone lookup material on transpose phone search here now what time I check not next to home this guide here.

Hi Peter. It is really interesting that there are still people who are not convinced that Global Warming is caused by man. I actually checking some of the studies/theories you have posted. Thanks for the info.revitol stretch mark cream

Great list of articles written by the same people. Nice work, did this take 3 google searches or 4? Can you tell me why statements by national and international scientific orgs have publically agreed with AGW?

It's amazing how many of these "paranormal" icons seem to merge together. Essay Help There always seem to be theories about how they link together in some way. I'm sure someone has a very good explanation as to how Bigfoot killed JFK to help cover Roswell.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. head lice treatment There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

Hi author, The post is written in very a good manner and it entails many useful information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post. Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement the concept. Thank you for the post

I completely agree with the above comment, the internet is with a doubt growing into the most important medium of communication across the globe and its due to sites like this that ideas are spreading so quickly.